July 14, 2025 Breaking News, Latest News, and Videos

The Big Reason California Water Bond Will Pass: It Should:

The outcome is rarely certain when state government asks voter permission to spend $7.5 billion of the taxpayers’ money, but it’s also unusual for a ballot proposition to win as wide a range of support as Prop. 1 already had more than a month before the Nov. 4 Election Day.

Every poll shows the measure winning by a wide margin among voters who know anything about it; in fact, the more voters know, the more likely they are to back this.

One big reason is the ongoing drought, California’s fifth dry spell of the last 40 years that’s lasted three years or longer. Those numbers mean the state has been in drought through almost 40 percent of the modern era.

But through all those dry and dusty spells, Californians have willingly, even enthusiastically, increased water efficiency. Southern Californians cut per capita water use more than 25 percent, while Central Valley farms invented new drip irrigation methods. Still, the water shortage persists, and now there’s rationing in many areas.

No wonder voters want to do something, almost anything, to end the shortage. In the bond proposal before them now, among others, are programs to clean up polluted or partially spoiled ground water, one affected area being the San Fernando Valley portion of Los Angeles, where pollution cuts amounts of usable well water while it also complicates efforts to recharge the local aquifers with storm runoff and recycled “gray” water.

One large project this bond might enable is a raising of the Shasta Dam near Redding, which opponents say would flood sites sacred to the Winnemem Wintu Indian tribe, prompting tribal leaders to call any such project “a form of cultural genocide.” Another big development would likely be the proposed Temperance Flat Dam on the San Joaquin River. When full, this one would inundate and dwarf the existing Millerton Lake created by Friant Dam and drown several active hydroelectric dams, costing about 313 megawatts of electricity.

But nothing in the water bond makes either of those projects certain. Construction proposals would be evaluated by the state and far more efficient, less costly new underground storage could replace the big dams. The best argument for that shift is that California already has more than 1,400 dams, and as White House science adviser John Holdren noted early this year, “The problem is not that we don’t have enough reservoirs, it is that we do not have enough water to fill them.”

Even if large dams were built, intending to capture more water than before during wet years to provide better coverage during dry ones, they would get only about $2.5 billion, one-third of this proposed bond.

Another $850 million would go toward cleaning up ground water and $395 million to better manage winter flooding and save more water that now runs uselessly out to sea. A few hundred million more would go to expanding the state’s sometimes halting efforts to recycle water, making so-called grey water that’s been used to wash clothes and dishes more readily available for watering trees and other plants.

One of the best parts of all this is that for the largest projects, matching money would have to come from the interests that might use most new water supplies. In short, this would not be a pure taxpayer subsidy of big farms, nor would it leave them entirely on their own. It’s a compromise, and that’s often the most effective way to get things done.

Agood measure of this compromise is that it drew better than two-thirds majorities in both the state Senate and Assembly, and now has the support of groups frequently opposed to each other. So the Nature Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited and Audubon California are allied with the California Farm Bureau Federation and virtually all major water districts.

The major opposition comes from fisheries advocates perpetually fearful of encroachment on water quality and supplies in the Delta of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers. They call this “a hogfest of (pork) projects…” No doubt there would be plenty of pork; how else to get so many politicians and bureaucrats on board?

But that doesn’t mean it isn’t needed. There was similar opposition when Gov. Jerry Brown’s father, the late Gov. Pat Brown, pushed the state Water Project in the 1960s. Imagine where the state would be today without that.

in Opinion
<>Related Posts

SM.a.r.t.Column: Happy Fourth of July 

July 2, 2025

July 2, 2025

SMart (Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow) hopes you are enjoying a great 3-day weekend as part of your...

SM.a.r.t Column: Cities That Never Shut Up – The Roaring Cost of Urban Noise

June 26, 2025

June 26, 2025

In today’s cities, silence isn’t golden—it’s extinct. From sunrise to insomnia, we’re trapped in a nonstop symphony of shrieking car...

SM.a.r.t Column: Santa Monica Needs to See the Light

June 19, 2025

June 19, 2025

How Santa Monica’s Growing Light Pollution Is Eroding Human Health, Safety, and Sanity There was a time when our coastal...

SM.a.r.t Column: California’s Transit Death Spiral: How Housing Mandates Are Backfiring

June 15, 2025

June 15, 2025

California’s ambitious housing mandates were supposed to solve the affordability crisis. Instead, they’re creating a vicious cycle that’s killing public...

SM.a.r.t. Column: A City Dying by a Thousand Cuts

June 5, 2025

June 5, 2025

Santa Monica, once celebrated for its blend of coastal charm and progressive ideals, is slowly bleeding out — not from...

SM.a.r.t Column: Oops!! What Happened? And What Are You Going to Do About It?

May 29, 2025

May 29, 2025

Our Santa Monica Architects for a Responsible Tomorrow (SMa.r.t) articles have, over the past 12 years, collectively presented a critical...

SM.a.r.t Column: Why Santa Monica Might Need a Desalination Plant, and Maybe Even Nuclear Power

May 22, 2025

May 22, 2025

Santa Monica is known for its ocean views, sunny skies, and strong environmental values. But there’s a challenge on the...

SM.a.r.t Column: SMO (So Many Options) Part 3: “Pie in the Sky”

May 17, 2025

May 17, 2025

SMO: Fantasy, Fact, and the Fog of Wishful ThinkingBy someone who read the fine print Every few months, a headline...

SM.a.r.t. Column: Owner Occupancy Protects Against Corporate Over-Development

May 2, 2025

May 2, 2025

This week SMa.r.t. will have as guest columnist Mark Borenstein. Mark is a long-time Santa Monica resident, a retired attorney,...

Opinion: Declaration of Economic State of Emergency in Malibu & Pacific Palisades: A Direct Result of the Devastating Impact of the Palisades Fire

April 27, 2025

April 27, 2025

Malibu and Pacific Palisades Request Emergency Financial Measures By Ramis Sadrieh, Chairperson, Malibu Pacific Palisades Chamber of Commerce    On behalf...

SM.a.r.t Column: The World’s Happiest Cities

April 27, 2025

April 27, 2025

Almost every year, we see new cities, regions, and countries that make the list(s) of our planet’s happiest and healthiest...

SM.a.r.t Column: A City for Everyone

April 20, 2025

April 20, 2025

Santa Monica dazzles with its ocean views, sunshine, and laid-back charm. But beyond the postcard image lies a more complicated...

SM.a.r.t Column: Part II: Rebuilding Resilient Communities: Policy and Planning After the Fires

April 13, 2025

April 13, 2025

The January 2025 wildfires that devastated Pacific Palisades and Altadena left an indelible mark on Los Angeles County. Beyond the...

SM.a.r.t Column: Innovative Materials for Fire-Resistant Rebuilding After the LA Fires

April 6, 2025

April 6, 2025

In the aftermath of the devastating 2025 Los Angeles wildfires, homeowners face the daunting task of rebuilding their lives and...

Opinion: Supervisor Lindsey P. Horvath Community Column Regarding a More Accountable Homeless Services System

April 3, 2025

April 3, 2025

By Lindsay Horvath, Los Angeles Board of Supervisors This week marks a significant milestone in our fight to end homelessness...